We can know. Actually I have a medical background and I'm a student of
the Bible. You can verify the Bible as being inspired with a set of
encyclopedias and history, and with a medical background you know an eye
and a brain can't "happen". I suppose my husband had more sense when he
was a young man than most scientists when he wrote:
Two Thousand million years ago
In a quiet sea, by the warm sunglow
A raindrop to a dust mote said
Though you can't think I am dead
We've got to plan for what's ahead.
There's just no future being slime
Improve ourselves, we have the time
You be a fish, swim to and fro
I'll be a bird, just watch me go
Though you can't think, and I've no eyes
We'll accidently organize
Into an ape, and then a man
We'll do it all without a plan
Do you find this hard to conceive
Don't reason on it, just believe
Ignore the facts, be "scientific"
believe in things that aren't specific
It's taught in every institution
This religion they call evolution
The creation/evolution debate is probably my husband's pet subject.
We've got lots of books and have written papers. Frankly, in my personal
opinion evolution is the greatest false doctrine there is - it tries to
rip God's name from his creation. You wouldn't try that with Michel Angelo!
If you have questions just ask we'll answer them from the standpoint of
" real science"! Thanks for the question.
Domain: betty at pd.org
On 11 Jun 1995, DZuck1 wrote:
> After following the thread "educating the public about creationism" with
> some interest, I have a few points of my own to add to the fray. The
> whole point of religion is in the faith of the beleivers. So why is
> everyone surprised that the creationists hold to their beliefs? And if
> the view that God created the world sounds far-fetched to the tained ear
> of the scientist, imagine how the Buddhist might react to the conjecture
> that humankind evolved over millions of years from something that
> accidently crawled out of a tidal pool!!??
> Basically I'm saying that rather than flaming people for holding to
> certain beleifs(even in the face of data to the contrary), let's remember
> that the sceintific views look odd in many areas of the world. Five
> hundred years ago, all the scholars "knew" that the idea of the Earth not
> being the center of the universe was ridiculous. So how can we "know"
> today that we are right?
>> --Douglas Zucker
> psychology undergrad, Fairfield Univ
>DZUCK1 at aol.com>>